Slashdot Mirror
Vista Not Compatible With SQL Server
kiran_n sent in an article by Fortune's Owen Thomas on Vista not being compatible with SQL Server. An excerpt:
"But now Microsoft has a problem. Vista, its long-awaited update to the Windows operating system, can't run the current version of SQL Server. The company is working on a SQL upgrade that is compatible with Vista — called SQL Server 2005 Express Service Pack 2 — but it's in beta and can be licensed only for testing purposes. Microsoft hasn't set a release date for the new SQL program."
I can't run SQL Server on Vista! Christmas is ruined! Thanks for nothing Microsoft >:(
SQL Server Developer Edition probably falls into this category, as well as SQL Server Express. Both of these might be expected to run on a workstation.
If anybody is moving critical databases to an OS that isn't even officially released yet, then they deserve to have their eyeballs poked out with hot, metal pokers, and then promptly fired.
In other breaking news, Oracle does not work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux V.5.
Main Entry: irony
Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
Function: noun
1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony
Nope, doesn't look like irony to me. Irony would be if this problem was discovered while trying to upgrade Microsoft's own servers to Vista. This is just poor planning and communication between departments.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
With all due respect, RTFA:
SQL Server is definitely not the only existing software that won't work on Vista. Of course, as always, people will swallow the incompatibilities between versions of Microsoft software much easier than they'll swallow the incompatibilities between Microsoft and non-Microsoft software. Likely, many people will express their anger over the incompatibilities, but not attach any hard consequences.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Actually, not only does it not work with SQL 2005 but it doesnt work with SQL 2000 either. In fact if you try to install SQL 2000 on vista it will try to stop you with messages saying the software has been tested to be incompatible with Vista. MS has not gone on the record that SQL 2000 will NEVER work with Vista. They want everyone to upgrade to SQL 2005 and have no plans to fix SQL 2000. If anyone hasn't used SQL 2005, they have removed DTS packages and the replacement is so horribly broken that simple things like copying a table from one database to another does not work.
Good thing there is windows server 2003 still.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
So much for Windows being great for backwards compatibility.
#!/
Think of it: Did anyone of you expect the current version of SQL Server to simply play nice with the "new and improved" Microsoft Vista OS, with all enhancements, bell and whistles? Heck, these "enhancements" took more than 5 years to implement! Way more time than was planned. Give me a break!
The article implies (and pretty much states) that Vista doesn't work with SQL server, implying that your client/server programs that depend on SQL Server won't work on Vista. They may in fact *not* work, but it has nothing to do with SQL Server!!!
The article is written by someone that doesn't know what they're talking about, or they DO know what they're talking about and they wanted to get readers and ad-clicks.
If there's one thing the Windows OS team is good at, it's backwards compatibility. I recently heard that a Win32 app I wrote 10 years ago for NT 3.51 still works on Vista. The SQL Server team must have fucked up something big for their code to fail on Vista.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
First of all, the title of the post (and the article's title) are misleading. "SQL Server" (suggesting its full fledged version) was NEVER compatible with Vista, or XP for that matter. It's meant for servers, not desktops.
Second, Vista is NOT RELEASED YET. Despite that, early adopters can download SQL Server Express SP1, which runs fine on Vista, although it is not technically "supported" by Microsoft. In fact, almost all of the issues are easily worked around by running the setup as admin, and SQL Server Management Studio as admin.
For those people who have additional problems, there is plenty of good documentation on how to get it running, or they can install the beta of SP2, which should be RTM by the time Vista hits the shelves in the end of Jan anyway.
So despite the author's obvious attempts at a sensational title that would get him lots of hits (and, evidentially, posted on Slashdot), his content is almost pure FUD... and pure gold for Slashdot.
How about developers who need to write vista applications that talk to databases? It helps to have a locally running copy of SQL server if you are disconnected from the network so that you can still work.
You install the "Express" version (which is what the article is talking about) on a desktop/laptop for development purposes. For example, I'm developing a specialized information tracking application that is intended to run on my company's intranet. Our company is 100% MS shop, so we have to design for SQL Server as the back end. I'm using MS Visual Web Developer 2005 Express to create the ASP.Net "business logic" or "mddleware", and a web-based user interface. Visual Web Developer 2005 Express automatically installs SQL Server Express and integrates nicely.
Just not on Vista, it appears.
I dunno what the problem is, I am running SQL Server 2005 64 bit Standard edition on Vista Ultimate RTM. Works fine. Only using it because the application I am developing uses ODBC to the Jet engine which has now been deprecated according to MS, so I had to try something else. Seems to work fine, though I don't use it too in depth yet.
I lead the IT department of a small company, and we use SQL Server Express on desktops all the time. Our clients use it as well, since almost all of them are far too small to own a real server (e.g. restaurants, doctors offices, etc.). We ran into this last week when we installed Vista for the first time to see what would happen. Needless to say, we were rather shocked when none of our internally developed apps would work. VERY annoying.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Well, since even Windows server is a desktop OS (it's a server, why is everything done via a GUI and no decent way to script half the things you need to do on it?) it's perfectly reasonable, really. The very name 'Windows' gives it away as a desktop OS, even if they try and tack on the word 'Server'.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
This is about the desktop version (SQL Server Express). Companies don't run that, so this isn't much of a big deal. The regular SQL Server works fine.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
"Zune also has the same problem"
Christ, it won't run SQL Server either?
Lame
This crap is getting lame. I'm seeing more and more unfounded "articles" on here because they have to make sure they get the stories Digg has. Newsflash folks. 99% of the articles on Digg are fanboy crap. This one is no different.
What's funny is there are already numerous comments here, but apparently NONE of those judging and commenting have actually tried what the article seems to be talking about. MSSQL Server 2000 and 2005 run *just fine* under Vista. There may be some minor compatibility problems and yes, the installer warns of these, but you can click right through that. Maybe some issues crop up if you tried to use it as a full fledged server solution as is, but for development purposed they work *just fine*.
Plus, this article is talking about MSSQL Server 2005 Express, which is the local, chopped up locked down version. The rest of the versions work just fine, plus there will be, soon enough, updates to increase the compatibility.
Please keep this kind of crap off Slashdot. It's fine to love OS and hate MS. But at least get your facts *sort of* straight. This is just way off the mark.
I'd agree except that most boxen now use some sort of GUI for the admins, though the older and more experienced admins still live in command shells and scripting (automation!)
But the question of what constitutes a "server" is normally a question of hardware capacity, not artificial restrictions imposed by multi-layer bundling. The prices for AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Oracle, Sybase, etc. (i.e. both OS and core services) are based on CPU capacity, number of users, and other metrics that have nothing to do with some vague concept of server vs. client. (Plus X-11 and related display technologies reverse the terms anyhow, so they really have no meaning. I prefer digraphs -- data/command comes from here and goes there.)
The add-on modules for most operating systems and products are feature add-ons -- GIS data type package, enhanced application integration/administration packages, developer/compiler package, etc. The only operating system I know of that clips out all the shell scripting, scheduling services, and other components needed to do real work is Windows.
There are no "desktop" or "home" editions of Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, VM/MVS, AS400, or other systems because the concept is irrational. You run the same binaries on a two-way HP-UX desktop as on an 8-32 way SMP server. It's just minor configuration variables that change to tune performance; Microsoft is the only one to try to make you pay for those tweaks.
Or you can download a package that will apply the registry changes and make your desktop act like a "server". To me that just highlights the inanity of the marketting distinctions.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
For those unaware this is primarily a concern for people who develop stand alone applications that currently use SQL Express.
Why use SQL express? It's more stable and more flexible than just using ODBC to connect to an Access database file. Plus you can use all other features that you can not use in Access. It's also the defacto standard for Visual Studio 2005 developers so it gets a lot of use now adays in development. It's also far easier to use than installing the clients for Oracle or MySQL and reduces your program's foot print. (1.2MB vs 35 MB)
I actually use this, and when testing Vista didn't run into a single problem with it in it's current state. (It installed and ran fine under Beta 1 and 2 although it warned you that it could be unstable, it seems in RC and RTM they actually added it to the "Can't install" list)
And there's more than one way to connect to a database, SQL express isnt' the primary route, so the article is being VERY presumptious about impact on the industry. It's not writen by someone who knows the difference between SQL server (The server app that runs on Windows Server 2000, 2003 and uses a client program to handle the connections to a server) and the SQLExpress App (For use in stand alone programs and development environments and will not allow connections from any machine other than the host machine)
It's also amazing that the author of the article thought that you wouldn't test seperately on both platforms. He makes it sound like having to test on Xp then on Vista is a bad thing. Honestly, if you arn't testing on both and on Windows 2000, you're not doing your job right.
Is it important? Yes, it sucks to have apps that I was testing under Vista Beta 1, that I can no longer test because of the "no-install" flag. But SP to the rescue!
As for using Oracle vs MS-SQL, which is the bigger point. Well. having to deal with both at work I can tell you, MS-SQL is far easier to maintain and manage and back up. Oracle still has far too many legacy items in 9i and 10 that require "special" treatment. Not to mention that it's error reporting system is pointless 90% of the time, and we have to hand step everything we do to figure out why we're getting an error instead of a single error message that says, "OCA-XXXXX: Column can not hold data" instead of "ORA-XXX: 'DOCNAME' is too long for column." You can imagine what a pain Oracle is when you've got an SQL statement that a page long. I won't even go into how unfriendly Oracle's support is. Half the time you ask them for help the answer is "If you were an Oracle trained admin you'ld know that." How about, "If you put it in the manual, I'd already know that. Or if your people would reply to emails without the snotty tone I'd know that." Ug...
Sorry about the rant, enjoy!
It's kind of ironic that SQL won't run on Vista when Vista was originally slated to have a file system BASED ON SQL. They must have had some serious issues with that file system :)
RFTA
Indeed. And perhaps the real question: Why the hell should we care about the compatability virtues of a workstation SQL server?
Considering how Vista doesn't really have all that much to offer over XP anyway, I'm surprised by how many software packages are incompatible with it. Did Microsoft take a copy of XP, tweak it just enough to break compatibility along with system stability, throw in some trivial new features, then call it Vista?
I'd be very surprised if anyone can make a business case for "upgrading" to Vista. Other than a small handful of situations, I can't imagine it would be worth the trouble.
Considering how Vista doesn't really have all that much to offer over XP anyway
...but..but..but..Microsoft told me it's the most secure and easiest to use version of Windows yet with enhanced multimedia and gaming functionality! (Of course, they also said the same thing about Windows 95, 98, 2000, and XP)
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
No SQL Server. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
My new blog
I work for a M$ Small Business Specialist, and I have a laptop with Vista Ultimate RTM, I also have SQL Server 2005 Enterprise (with Business Intelligence services).
<rant> Short answer? I hate it.
The laptop is a 64 bit HP Turion AMD 2000+ with 2GBs RAM (which my boss considered enough to disable the swap file entirely, it barely is: my load average is 1.5GBs).
One of the reasons SQL Server 2005 craps out (even during the INSTALLATION of it) is because of the new UAC. Info.
Also, Business Intelligence (SSIS, at least) services buggy as all hell (regardless of OS):
1) You can't debug Script Tasks or Script Components (known bug).
2) With Vista, I can't run my scripts because PrecompileScriptIntoBinaryCode must be True, and when it is, I get "The script files failed to load" error. As far as I can tell, there is no known work-around for this Vista-related bug, yet.
3) Web Service Tasks (which in our case is the primary reason we're using it to begin with) only work for "some" web services (no known list of these mysterious services, of course).
4) The Script VBA editor only allows GAC library references (I ended up creating my own DLL to act as a proxy between the web service and the SSIS package), which is a pain in itself.
The closest "working" dev environment you can have in Vista with VS2005/SQL Server 2005 is with VS2005 running as Administrator, and using SQL Server Management Studio purely for access to remote DBs (running on win2k3, of course). That's IF you exclude SQL Server Business Intelligence Services. This essentially means: Vista is GREAT, if you work around or avoid all the new features.
</rant>
Is anyone here currently hiring?
Wow. Okay, the rant went a tad off-track, now for the positives of Vista:
1) "Flip 3D": How innovative, but to be fair, the rolodex style is cool.
2) ???
3) Aero makes Minesweeper looks cooler!$!$!
how is babby formed?
I believe Management Studio Express allows you to display a query plan, which is also a free product.
Vista is the most secure Windows yet. Actually, Windows is not that insecure, by itself. It's the applications that run on top of it (including the bundled ones) that have the security holes. Vista removes this vulnerability by not running any applications.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The integration with Visual Studio makes it far and away the best DB to use to develop data driven applications and it's a breeze to upgrade your applications and their databases to SQL Server if you need to make the move. If you've got to use MS, there's no better way to go.
I agree that the presense of a GUI is completely irrelevant, but:
concept of server vs. client. (Plus X-11 and related display technologies reverse the terms anyhow, so they really have no meaning.
Not true: X11 kept the terms the same.
The X server that you're running is indeed a server: it provides a service to others over the network, who can connect to it. The X clients you're using are definitely clients: if you think xclock is a server, can you start it from your SysV init and then connect to it?
It only seems backwards in this era because everybody is used to thinking "my little PC is always the client, and the big Unix box down the street is always the server", but that's not true -- just an incorrect generalization.
If there's something that made "client" and "server" lose much of their meaning, it's P2P services: every process is both a client and a server.
It's the same as usual with MS platform. If you decide to go that way, then you're best off going all the way in. Win2003, VS2005, ASP.NET, IIS, MS SQL Server - you'll get more out of those combined than you would have by using them separately.
Can we flame you about running Oracle!?!?
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
I applaud your clarity of reason, sir!
"Normally, your boss pays you, but when you buy him a Christmas present, you're effectively paying him. So you can see that this whole 'employee' thing is pretty meaningless."
"Cheap, unpowered speakers normally emit sound, but if you plug them into the microphone jack, you'll be able to record. It just goes to show you what a bourgeoisie lie this so-called 'stereo equipment' is."
"I flew from New York to LA last week. Now I'm flying back, so as you can see names of cities have no meaning."
Oh, I see -- you don't like words that describe things that are different at some times than they are at others. You'd rather use digraphs. Now I understand.
"I connected to the mail Ph using my work Oo instead of the Ee I use at home."
This is correct. For the most part, "Enterprise" versions of Linux distributions differ from their workstation counterparts only in that the use repositories containing only the most stable and well-tested version of a given application package, while the workstations can afford to use ones that may be less stable, but contain more cutting-edge features. The other major distinction is the level of support that you're paying for. Most companies probably don't need 24/7 technical support for workstations, while this can be critical for a server. This is not the case with Windows. Vista's seven different editions are all essentiall Vista Ultimate, but with various levels of handicapping imposed on them.
Some server software might not work on an OS that is in development stage.
Later it has also been announced that the Sun is hot. We're waiting for more breaking news...
for my studies, I need to be able to have a SQL server running on a desktop version of Windows. There are many students like me who's university lecturers use Microsoft development tools such as Visual Studio, and so we end up having to use it as well. Therefore, many of us have to worry about this issue.
Why the hell should we care about the compatability virtues of a workstation SQL server?
How about because if you were developing code for me, and I found you testing your code against the production database on a real server, you'd be out the door so fast your head would spin?
(Though TBH I wouldn't give you access to the production database anyhow, but that's by the by.)
So I guess this means you test your code against a different version of SQL Server database than runs in production, eh? If you did that at our company "you'd be out the door so fast your head would spin."
This is why people have QA servers to test against. I certainly hope, for the sake of your company, you don't just test against your workstation and then place it in production. LOL.
Loading...
set showplan_text on
set showplan_all on
set statistics profile on
set statistics xml on